tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post3868118180785341904..comments2024-03-17T17:46:24.354+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: A Primer to the Apparatus of "The New Field"P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-92059205154636605102011-03-25T09:45:51.617+00:002011-03-25T09:45:51.617+00:00Re abbreviations:
The post was introducing the fo...Re abbreviations:<br /><br />The post was introducing the format of the apparatus of the print edition. Using and explaining the abbreviations was essential for this purpose. I will avoid them in the future.<br /><br />The σ΄ "abbreviation" is essential to the history of the fragment and is not an abbreviation. The mss preserve the reading to Sym often using a sigma prime; thus the siglum is included as part of the lemma.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86944525844467217182011-03-24T23:23:25.660+00:002011-03-24T23:23:25.660+00:00thanks Johnthanks JohnPeter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40458343414613927732011-03-24T09:22:01.199+00:002011-03-24T09:22:01.199+00:00I second the post about abbreviations. Please avoi...I second the post about abbreviations. Please avoid them where possibleDirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759927266909478390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53653687539843164782011-03-23T22:27:02.969+00:002011-03-23T22:27:02.969+00:00Re: abbreviations, i just mean items such as
Wit1...Re: abbreviations, i just mean items such as <br />Wit1<br />Wit2<br />σʹ:<br />↓C<br /><br />etc. which make sense in print, where there is a premium on space, but not online.G.W. Schwendnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12348141394678110423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50936522759687000052011-03-23T17:42:58.661+00:002011-03-23T17:42:58.661+00:00Update: Professor Hagedorn clarified his use of (ν...Update: Professor Hagedorn clarified his use of (ν), which stands in 139 and 643. The symbol stands for the ligature for -ῶν in those mss. He sent me the image of 139, and I concur that this is indeed the case. Therefore, 139 and 643 should be (and have already been in my apparatus) grouped with the genitive plural variant. <br /><br />Thanks for the good question, Peter!John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82056696180724076632011-03-22T20:27:48.900+00:002011-03-22T20:27:48.900+00:00And we are back...
d) In the Introduction, the Ve...And we are back...<br /><br />d) In the Introduction, the Versions associated with the Hexapla will be described in detail. I'm still thinking through your suggestion, and I can't imagine a way to accomplish it. The marginal note is either there in Syh (Ceriani) or it's not? It's either in Claude Cox's collation of Arm mss or it's not. The presence of a Greek fragment in 32:1b should alert future researchers to check their new ms finds at these places to see if the other versions confirm the lemma or provide a variant etc.<br /><br />Have a I misunderstood you?<br /><br />e) You have really done your homework! The readings of 3005 and 3006 (and those beyond 3000) come to me through Ursula and Dieter Hagedorn, Nachlese zu den Fragmenten der juengeren griechischen Uebersetzer des Buches Hiob, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. The Hagedorns have supplied their own mss, and left the following note in the introduction: for the manuscripts, which do not appear in Rahlf's Verzeichnis, R. Hanhart has decided the Sigla 3005ff. for the Goettingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen (3). These are mss, which the Hagedorns used for their extensive research, which have not been officially catalogued by the Unternehmen. Again, this will be made clear in the introduction. For your information, ms 3005 is Genuensis Durazzo-Giustiniani A I 10 (9/10 century). It is ms U in the Hagedorn's edition of the catena of Hiob (De Gruyter, vol. I, 1994). Ms 3006 is Sinaiticus gr. 3 (11 century).<br /><br />f) For these readings I am using the Hagedorn's Kollationen. I believe they use parentheses to signify that the last letter is incurtem, but I will check with Professor Hagedorn about this. I will probably use vid or inc after the said ms in order to indicate the exact nature of the problem with the reading.<br /><br />Sorry for the confusion here.<br /><br />Thanks again for the feedback. I enjoy the dialogue already.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-41907839748813402402011-03-22T20:27:11.500+00:002011-03-22T20:27:11.500+00:00Friends,
Thanks for your comments and questions. ...Friends,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments and questions. I wondered whether to launch out with a post like this one, since there is some prolegommena, which is necessary to know. I posted it anyway, thinking that I would have ample space to treat these matters in the comments.<br /><br />Ulrich Schmid - I am not in a position to share my experience with the technical side of the project at this time. There is a database set up, but not all of the editors have made use of it yet. Since I am at the beginning of my work, I have not made use of the database yet. I will plan a post for when I do begin to use it. Sorry to disappoint.<br /><br />G.W. Schwendner, I'm not quite sure what your comment is communicating. Would you please explain what you mean by the "highly abbreviated style" and how that relates either to the print edition or the on-line one?<br /><br />Peter, thanks for your questions and comments. I will do my best to answer them in order.<br /><br />a) The Wit2 line may be clearer if placed directly below the LXX text. The reason why the three texts are placed on top of each other is to facilitate comparison between them. If there is an apparatus between the texts, would that not interfere with this end? Furthermore, there will not be a Wit2 line for every fragment. It is only used when influence on the LXX text history is perceived. Its function will be clearly described in the introduction to the edition. Does this help?<br /><br />b) This is a fair suggestion. Currently, the apparatuses are arranged in order. The Attribution comes first, and then the lemma. The attribution line comes first, and then the variant to the lemma line.<br /><br />c) This is a very good suggestion, and one that I already employ when I work through the texts, which are sub asterisk. In these problems the Greek mss are very inconsistent in their preservation of the attribution. Here, since the Arm, La, Co and many of the individual Greek mss (catena or otherwise) do not usually preserve the attribution, I list only the mss which preserve it along with the Syh, which usually preserves it. Currently, for these types of problems, it is easier to subtract the few witnesses which do not preserve the attribution than to list the ones that do. <br /><br />Is it not clear that 250 and 3006 should be subtracted from the witnesses in the Wit1 line?<br /><br />to be continuedJohn Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48394221815490894042011-03-22T14:28:32.800+00:002011-03-22T14:28:32.800+00:00Very nice, but i don't understand the need to ...Very nice, but i don't understand the need to perpetuate the highly abbreviated style in the online version that a printed app.crit. requires.G.W. Schwendnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12348141394678110423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-39659614293614460182011-03-22T13:21:43.558+00:002011-03-22T13:21:43.558+00:00Thanks John,
That is a good first post. Now we kno...Thanks John,<br />That is a good first post. Now we know you are serious about this stuff. And in order to get the comments going I have a couple of comments/questions about this:<br />a) if Wit2 is an apparatus to the LXX text wouldn't it be clearer if it were situated directly underneath the LXX text?<br />b) it might be better/clearer if the Var. information came directly underneath the Wit1 since, as your notes show, you've chosen the text line for Symm. at this point from these variants. <br />c) why give the Attr via a negative apparatus? Wouldn't it be simpler to list the positive evidence of attribution? (And why not drop this below Var.?)<br />d) For NonGr I wonder if it would be better to give the information that you know does not contribute - this could help future researchers if they find a non-Greek version that is relevant. Maybe anyway?<br />e) Looking at this I wondered whether 3005 and 3006 were different manuscripts or a typo. On checking in Rahlfs-Fraenkel I can't find either of them!<br />f) In the Var. collection I don't find the information re 139 and 643 very clear: EAUTW(N) - what are these parentheses signifying here?Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-22939101884490472762011-03-22T13:15:17.117+00:002011-03-22T13:15:17.117+00:00Thanks for introducing the exciting work done on r...Thanks for introducing the exciting work done on reconstructing the Hexapla. Can you share your experience with the web interface and the electronic database and how the digital medium shapes the work that you are doing?Ulrich Schmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04599151189851613469noreply@blogger.com